Adulteration-Paper chromatography test-Colouring matter-Cannot be said to be sufficient and sure test for holding that unpermitted coal tar dye was detected.

1. Judgment dated 26/11/1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, rupnagar dismissing the appeal of balmukand (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against the judgment dated 5/7/1993 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate, Kharar convicting him under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been assailed by way of this petition.

2. The prime question raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this case is, whether the Paper Chromatography Test, in order to detect the non-permitted colouring material was a sure test and whether such report in case of sample of Badana could be treated as sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused.

3. The brief facts, essential for disposal of the petition are that on 26-3-1991 at 3.25 p. m. Manoj Kumar, Food Inspector along with other officials by reaching Bus Stand, kharar purchased 900 grams of Badana against Rs.18/-. After issuing a notice in form No. VI, as prescribed under the Rules, the contents of the sample were made homogenous and, thereafter, separated into three equal portions, each portion was put in three dry clean glass bottles; the paper slips bearing the code and signatures of local Health Authority were pasted on the wrappers on each part of the sample lengthwise covering the mouth and bottom of the sample and joining its ends. After completing the formalities, sample was first sent to public Analyst, Punjab, Jallandhar, and thereafter, to Central Food Laboratory, mysore, which vide its report Ex. PK dated 12-6-1999 found to be adulterated. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:-

3_1084_CrLJ0_2008.htm

4. Consequently, a complaint was filed. The Food Inspector examined himself (Manoj kumar) as P. W.1, Harish Chander (P. W.2), mohinder Singh (P. W.3) and Dr. Rajinder Singh (P. W.4 ).

5. The petitioner denied all the allegations in his statement under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in defence examined Pal Singh (D. W.1) and mohan Lal (D. W.2 ). The trial ended in conviction and the appeal was also dismissed.

6. Petitioners counsel has made challenge to the impugned judgment, on the grounds; firstly that no standard of Badana sweet has been provided in the Act and, therefore, the Court could not convict the accused on the ground that the sweet was adulterated in view of the presence of coal tar dye in the Badana. Secondly, the director, Central Food Laboratory did not properly analyse the food, so as to reach the conclusion that the food was adulterated, and the chromatography spot test was not a sure test to reach the conclusion that unpermitted coal tar dye was used. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the following direct judgments on the issue :-

Mohinder Pal V/s. The State of Punjab, 1986 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 147; Shri Klshan V/s. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1; Girraj Parshad V/s. The State of Haryana, vol. XX 1993 The Criminallaw Times 430; state of Haryana (Govt. Food Inspector) V/s. Rattan Lal, Vol. XX 1993 The Criminal Law times 79; and Maya Ram V/s. The State of punjab, 1987 (II) Prevention of food Adulteration Cases 320.

7. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments and the arguments, addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis thereof, I find some substance in the same. After taking into consideration some previous decisions, Honbte Mr. Justice S. S. Diwan in Mohlnder Pals case (supra)in para 4 of its judgment observed as under :-

"4. Sandhawalia, C. J. in Lekh Raj V/s. The state, 1980 (II) FAC 166 while dealing with a case in which fruit cream was said to be adulterated following M. V. Krishnan nambissans case (1966 Cri LJ 1347) (supra)and Hari Shankar Benerji V/s. Corporation of Calcutta 1984 (1) FAC 58 : (1973 Cri lj 1264) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kanshi Ram, 1972 FAC 41, held that fruit cream not being ice-cream and no standard for